24 October 2011

They don't like the Benedictine Arrangement one bit

Over at Pray Tell someone called Fritz has been discussing the question of orientation at Mass and has suggested that the Benedictine arrangement may be idolatry:

"If I were to put this polemically, which of course I would never do, I would say that identifying the crucifix rather than the Eucharist as the point of orientation skirts the edge of idolatry. This point seems so obvious to me that I wonder what is going on with those who continue to put forward the idea of common orientation toward the crucifix. Could this be a case of a poor idea gaining momentum simply because it has been suggested by an authoritative source (i.e. Pope Benedict)."

There is more here. They don't like it. They don't understand it. Now they are calling it names.

You've been played, sir! Fritz' comments were clearly not meant to be taken seriously - they were meant to demonstrate how the intellectual foundations of the new rite, which were never that strong to begin with, have completely collapsed with a few sturdy blows.

That other blog is full of professional "liturgists" who know their time is short. I honestly think most of them would be better off as Episcopalians or Congregationalists. Their forty year reign is finally over and not a moment too soon!

The 'Benedictine Arrrangement' erects a wall of brass between the presiding clergy and the gathered assembly (the ordinary folk). Here the clergy resembles a group behind bars.] Do you ever think about the reality that it is not the fact that Jesus died (even as a criminal on the cross) that is ultimately important -- but rather uniquely He rose from dead? Despite the fact that the Roman Rite seems to be rooted in Good Friday, the rest of the Church (and the Roman Rite for its first 1000 years) centers the Faith on Easter -- as St. Paul insists!

I think some pondering and meditation on I Corinthians 15 is properly in order here. Paul does not 'rejoice' in the death of a slave, the crucifixion, imposed upon Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, but rather upon its result, the Resurrection -- which makes our faith 'vain' if we do not take it as central to our belief!

For the Jews of Jesus' time, (and even now) the notion of 'sacrifice' included a great deal more than the 'the destruction/killing' of the victim (which despite the use of John's Gospel and 'behold the wood of the Cross' etc is still the major emphasis in the West piety). The Jewish understanding emphasizes the 'desired result of the sacrifice'-- the sharing of a benefit from God. This wider emphasis on the 'God-connected' results of the 'sacrifice' was certainly true also for the Greeks and the Romans (and all around the Mediterranean Sea. The Eastern Churches well understand this and have kept a strong emphasis on the Resurrection as the center of our faith. The Western Church's understanding of 'sacrifice' is much complicated by post-Roman Empire 'reinventions/re-thinkings' of the meaning of 'sacrifice' when classic animal or grain/vegetable sacrifices were no longer part of common experience. We modern Westerners are also hindered by the use of the word in a modern sense of 'giving up something of value' -- eg Lenten penances.

It's not about symbolism of the Divine Liturgy/Mass but about the essence of it which is the Sacrifice...

But hey if you want symbolism and mentioning of the Resurrection there is a prayer after consecration that says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is memory of - passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord.There is also the elevation itself which can symbolize the ascension. There is the per Ipsum which can also symbolize the same thing. There is the rite of comingling of the species which can symbolize the resurrection....

I also don't know where did you get the idea that passion and death i.e. the sacrifice is less important since our salvation is merrited by the sacrifice. He merited nothing by His own glorification in resurrection but He showed us where our hope should rest.

Also the Roman Liturgy has been virtually unchanged since 6th century, and the Roman Canon dates back to 4th century(st. Athanasius brings us almost identical text).

Two small points: 1) the sharing of the host(and the chalice) in Eucharistic Communion is the culmination of the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is there that we are literally nourished on Divine Life. 2) the text of the "Roman Canon" you refer to is that in a book "On the Sacraments" by Saint Ambrose -- which includes several of the 'variants' from the Roman Canon still used in the Ambrosian Rite of Milan.

The odd bit about that other discussion is that it was primarily hung up on the theology/symbolism of "facing east" vs. "facing something other than east" rather than the more basic and obvious question of "facing the same direction" vs. "facing each other"

Deacon Fritz and company's strongest arguments for versus populum seemed to be that "then the priest and people both face the Eucharistic species", and "then the people can see the Eucharist". But both of these are true of the more traditional orientation -- whereas the many well-known weaknesses of versus-populum orientation are not present in the more traditional arrangement. No substantive discussion of those weakness at all -- very odd conversation indeed.

When Christ instituted the Eucharist, it was before His crucifixion. One can draw a line from the Last Supper to Calvary, and derive from that line the very simple fact that what we receive is the Body and Bloody of the Lame who was slain for our iniquities. We receive THAT LAMB, whole and entire when we receive the Eucharist. Sure He's resurrected. But we must receive the Lord's vicarious death, be washed in His bloody, before we can rise with Him in glory and splendor.